Case law

Feeling Great, Inc. v. N.C. Dep't of Revenue

2015 NCBC 81 · North Carolina Business Court · Aug 20, 2015

Without offering any explanation as to why the specific website at issue does not qualify for judicial notice, the Department's exception to that Finding of Fact fails. 10 The Court notes that, although the website … Unlike prescriptions for testing, these prescriptions clearly and specifically prescribe a sale of equipment and supplies.

Glover Construction Co. v. Sequoia Servs., LLC

2020 NCBC 49 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 18, 2020

The Statement of Organization for Sequoia lists Colangelo and John Michael as “the Managing Member(s) of [Sequoia] until their successors are elected and qualify.” (ECF No. 49.15.) … Additionally, Defendants assert that “Sequoia clearly had a legitimate business purpose in submitting bids for work . . . as this is the primary way business is obtained in the industry.”

Blythe v. Bell

2012 NCBC 42 · North Carolina Business Court · Jul 26, 2012

But, here the court does not find that the record quite as clearly raises the ethical concerns Defendants urge. … The second question is whether the record clearly demonstrates that Plaintiff’s notice of the issue of potential waiver was “prompt” within the meaning of the rule.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC v. Ag Ins. sa/nv

2019 NCBC 73 · North Carolina Business Court · Dec 6, 2019

Spill, others who have been or will be deposed are better qualified to address issues related to ABSAT. Duke also contends that Ms. … Good, does not establish the executive’s (or here Ms. Good’s) unique knowledge of Duke’s accounting classifications. (Duke’s Br. Opp’n to Joining Defs.’ Mot. to Compel 9.)

Alkemal Sing. Pte. Ltd. v. Dew Glob. Fin., LLC

2018 NCBC 35 · North Carolina Business Court · Apr 19, 2018

To establish a violation of N.C. Gen. … “Our case law establishes that ‘[s]imple breach of contract . . . do[es] not qualify as unfair or deceptive acts, but rather must be characterized by some type of egregious or aggravating circumstances before the statute

Vanguard Pai Lung, LLC v. Moody

2020 NCBC 56 · North Carolina Business Court · Aug 4, 2020

Moody can succeed only if the pleadings “clearly establish[] that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Carpenter v. Carpenter, 189 N.C. … If so, the right to advancement is limited to the qualifying claims. See, e.g., Weaver v. ZeniMax Media, Inc., 2004 Del. Ch. LEXIS 10, at *11–14 (Del. Ch. Jan. 30, 2014). 20.

Out of the Box Devs., LLC v. Logicbit Corp.

2014 NCBC 7 · North Carolina Business Court · Mar 20, 2014

Although the court has not scrutinized (nor has it been requested to scrutinize) each document produced under the Protective Order to determine whether it qualifies for Rule 26(c) protection, this case—a highly contentious … He did, however, clearly use the e- mail in a manner expressly prohibited by the Protective Order.

Med1 Nc Servs., LLC v. Med1 Plus, LLC

2021 NCBC 38 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 24, 2021

Robeson County, North Carolina solicits proposals from qualified providers for the exclusive contractual right to provide non-emergency ambulance services and non-ambulatory transportation services to residents within the … “However, a plaintiff’s mere expectation of a continuing business relationship is insufficient to establish such a claim.

Child Care Inc. v. Lj Schs. (Carolina), Inc.

2026 NCBC 8 · North Carolina Business Court · Feb 6, 2026

Plaintiffs argue that the Fixed Costs and Families Grants clearly carry “mandated expense obligations” and therefore should be deemed recurring revenue under the APA. 24. … However, under North Carolina law, disagreement with a discretionary decision does not establish bad faith. See Lovell v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 108 N.C.

Lawrence v. Umlic-Five Corp.

2007 NCBC 20 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 18, 2007

{28} “A Rule 12(c) motion should be granted only when ‘the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” … ) {43} Plaintiffs, however, fail to set forth facts to support these claims, and they further qualify their allegations as being made “upon information and belief.” (Compl. ¶¶ 22–23.)

Johnson & Morris Pllc v. Abdelbaky & Boes, Pllc

2016 NCBC 76 · North Carolina Business Court · Oct 11, 2016

In fact, the logos clearly are dissimilar. (Haas Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6.) . 15. … Olsen is not also a qualified and competent pediatric dentist, albeit less experienced than Dr. Johnson.

Stec v. Fuzion Inv. Capital, LLC

2012 NCBC 24 · North Carolina Business Court · Apr 30, 2012

{33} Additionally, non-outsiders “enjoy qualified immunity from liability for inducing their corporation or other entity to breach its contract with an employee.” Lenzer v. Flaherty, 106 N.C. … This language would indicate that it is far from established that such duties exist.

Analog Devices, Inc. v. Michalski

2006 NCBC 14 · North Carolina Business Court · Nov 1, 2006

{11} Maxim, Michalski and Karnik deny the allegations of the Complaint and assert that the trade secrets claimed by Analog do not qualify as trade secrets. … Whether the claimed trade secrets qualify for protection and whether or not Maxim is using them are central issues in the case.

Safety Test & Equip. Co. v. Am. Safety Util. Corp.

2016 NCBC 98 · North Carolina Business Court · Dec 16, 2016

Poindexter has substantial education, training, background, and experience in economics, and has been qualified frequently by courts to present expert testimony. … The Court preliminarily concludes that, subject to a proper evidentiary foundation established at trial, Dr.

Dapper Dev., L.L.C. v. Cordell

2025 NCBC 33 · North Carolina Business Court · Jul 15, 2025

the factual allegations in the instant case, is clearly inconsistent with his position as asserted in his earlier action. Wiley, 164 N.C. App. at 188. … Plaintiffs allude, under N.C.G.S. § 57D-6-02: The superior court may dissolve an LLC in a proceeding brought by either of the following: (1) The Attorney General . . . (2) A member, if it is established

Daniel Grp., Inc. v. Am. Sales & Mktg., Inc.

2016 NCBC 97 · North Carolina Business Court · Dec 15, 2016

A non-outsider enjoys qualified immunity from liability on a tortious interference claim. Combs v. City Elec. Supply Co., 203 N.C. App. 75, 84, 690 S.E.2d 719, 725 (2010). … App. at 371, 555 S.E.2d at 641 (finding that one’s desire to “establish a competing business” was a justification for interference). 54.

Wake County v. hotels.com, Lp

2007 NCBC 35 · North Carolina Business Court · Nov 19, 2007

{18} Plaintiffs also argue that, by collecting the tax on the full amount charged to the consumer and only remitting a portion, Defendants necessarily qualify as “taxable establishments” subject to the Occupancy Tax. … (5) Taxable establishment.

Knc Techs., LLC v. Tutton

2021 NCBC 25 · North Carolina Business Court · Apr 8, 2021

The undisputed facts also establish that the Liquidated Damages Provision was intended as a penalty. Defendants have carried their burden of establishing that the Liquidated Damages Provision is unenforceable. … App. 192, 196–97 (2014) (acknowledging that a party’s intention to “break its promise at the time that it made the promise” may qualify as an aggravating circumstance supporting a UDTPA claim).

Global Textile All., Inc. v. Tdi Worldwide, LLC

2018 NCBC 121 · North Carolina Business Court · Nov 29, 2018

Plaintiff uses an “extremely selective” process to identify qualified third parties, a process that requires significant amounts of time and money. (Id. at ¶ 29.) 8. … Lastly, the allegations clearly allege that the obligation to purchase shares of Dolven was incurred by Ryan. 60.

Js Real Estate Invs. LLC v. Gee Real Estate, LLC

2017 NCBC 102 · North Carolina Business Court · Nov 9, 2017

To be sure, Defendants’ decision to use the services of an entity controlled by Gee in lieu of a third-party vendor is not immune from criticism by JS Real Estate at trial. … According to the Supreme Court, the employee and his employer “clearly engaged in buyer-seller relations in a business setting.” Id. at 33, 519 S.E.2d at 312.